In the cases summarized below, defendants were accused of injuring or killing companion animals through means other than omission of care.
2016
In re T.M., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-160239, C-160240, C-160241, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4551. A juvenile was found delinquent under R.C. 959.13 for stabbing and killing a dog.
In re T.T., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-160235, C-160236, C-160237, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4549. A juvenile was found delinquent under R.C. 959.13 for stabbing and killing a dog.
State v. Pace, 2016-Ohio-1158, 61 N.E.3d 626 (11th Dist.). No contest was pleaded by Defendant for shooting and killing two dogs that ran through his property and onto the road in violation of R.C. 959.131. His attempt to seal the record was denied because the state’s need to maintain the record outweighed his need to seal it.
State v. Stargell, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 26446, 2016-Ohio-5653. Defendant killed another person and, immediately following, killed his dog with a pistol. The charges were allowed to be joined because he killed the dog within ten seconds of the person.
2015
State v. Brannon, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2014-09-012, 2015-Ohio-1488. Defendant had set traps on his property to catch coyotes which were disrupting his bird shooting business. The traps were found to be in violation of R.C. 1531.02, and he was also convicted under R.C. 959.13 for animal cruelty, presumably because a neighbor’s dog was caught and killed in the traps. The court did not fully discuss that issue.
2014
Davison v. Parker, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-098, 2014-Ohio-3277. Plaintiffs’ dog was shot and killed by Defendant, and Defendant was found guilty of violating R.C. 959.131(B). Although Plaintiffs received market value for damages, they could not receive more based on emotional attachment to the dog.
In re J.D.S., 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2013-06-046, CA2013-06-051, 2014-Ohio-77. A juvenile was found to be delinquent for stabbing a dog through a fence.
State v. Davis, 2nd Dist. Montgomery Nos. 25558, 25559, 2014-Ohio-624. Defendant was found guilty under R.C. 959.131(B) for cruelty to companion animals because he threw three kittens out of his car while driving. His assignment of error that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence was overruled.
2011
Shepherd v. Office of AG, Ct. of Cl. No. 2010-03495-AD, 2011-Ohio-3439. Plaintiff’s charges against the Attorney General’s office for poisoning her dog were dismissed because she had no evidence to support her claim.
State v. Jones, 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2010-P-0051 and 2010-P-0055, 2011-Ohio-5109. Defendant was convicted under 959.13(A)(3) for carrying his puppy off the ground by the neck collar for 10 to 20 seconds. He appealed on a procedural mistake that the dog warden made in filing the complaint himself, but was overruled because he did not raise the issue before trial.
State v. Mills, 9th Dist. Medina No. 10CA0027-M, 2011-Ohio-2323. Defendant was convicted under R.C. 959.131(B) for killing his son’s dog with a fence post to make it stop barking. His assignment of error that the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence was overruled.
2008
City of Columbus v. Bishop, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-300, 2008-Ohio-6964. Defendant was convicted under a municipal code for aiding in dog abuse because he held down the dog while another man stabbed it with a knife. On appeal Defendant argued that hearsay evidence was introduced and prejudiced the verdict, but the appellate court did not agree.
In re Lamuel, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007-CA-00333, 2008-Ohio-6669. A juvenile was charged with cruelty to animals because he threatened to feed his neighbor’s cat to his dog, and the neighbor returned home one day to find the juvenile on her porch and her cat (which was dead) in his dog’s mouth. However, the court did not find him guilty on this count, because there was not enough evidence to support his conviction.
State v. Ellington, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 22254, 2008-Ohio-986. Defendant threw a can of paint at her neighbor’s dog because it was in her yard and barking at a cat in her tree. The dog’s fur was covered in paint and had to be shaved off. She was convicted under R.C. 959.131(B), and her alibi evidence was not allowed to be presented.
2007
In re Haney, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2006 AP 09 0052, 2007-Ohio-5057. A juvenile was found delinquent for shooting his neighbor’s dog while hunting on their property. His appeal that the trial court failed to prove recklessness on his part was overturned because R.C. 959.13(A)(1) does not require recklessness on part of the Defendant.
State v. Clark, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-010, 2007-Ohio-5209. Defendant shot his own dog in violation of R.C. 959.13 and confessed his crime. On appeal, he said that his right to a speedy trial was violated because a second complaint was filed outside of the ninety-day period, but the appeals court upheld the trial court’s ruling because new facts were discovered which extended the period.
State v. Lausin, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2005-A-0049, 2007-Ohio-5649. Defendant was charged with hurting his neighbor’s dog. When new evidence showed that the dog may have been hit by a car, he tried to withdraw his no contest plea and enter a plea of not guilty. The trial court would not allow him to do this, and he was found guilty. The appellate court reversed the decision because the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing Defendant to change his plea from no contest to not guilty.
State v. Smith, 5th Dist. Licking No. 06CA115, 2007-Ohio-3670. Defendant killed two dogs that were trespassing on his property because they were menacing his sheep. He was convicted under R.C. 959.02. R.C. 959.04, which carves out an exemption for killing trespassing animals, did not apply, because he did not pay back the owner within fifteen days. Further, the dogs were within the call of the owner while hunting a coyote.
State v. Whitlow, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-005, 2007-Ohio-5907. Defendant burglarized a house and tortured the kittens that lived there (including freezing and bisecting), and was found guilty under R.C. 959.13. He appealed against the ruling that he should not be allowed to own animals anymore. His appeal was overruled.
2004
State v. Oshodin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1169, 2004-Ohio-1186. Defendant killed his dog with a machete and pled no contest. He was convicted for cruelty to a companion animal. His appeal was overruled because he entered a no contest plea and failed to preserve his issues for review by the appellate court.
2003
In re Definbaugh, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2003AP03-0021, 2003-Ohio-6138. A juvenile was found delinquent under R.C. 959.13(A)(1) because he put kittens in glass jars and smashed the jars on railroad tracks. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in suppressing testimony which was offered to show that the juvenile loved animals. However, the appellate court also said that it would not have affected the outcome of the case and overruled the assignment of error.
2002
State v. Shelton, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2002-0006, 2002-Ohio-7386. Defendant shot and killed a dog and was convicted for animal cruelty. He appealed based on the manifest weight of the evidence but did not submit the trial transcript. Therefore, his appeal was overruled.
2001
State v. Vogelsong, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00215, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1871 (Apr. 16, 2001). Defendant shot and killed his dog because it was too big for the house. Upon appeal, he challenged the testimony of his wife who testified about him letting their child play with a lighter and call it a “bomb”. The appellate court stated that the testimony was allowed because it was necessary to explain why she was afraid of him and why she was divorcing him.
2000
State v. Beck, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-00-1062, L-00-1061, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4978 (Oct. 27, 2000). Defendants were convicted because they stabbed a dog. They argued that R.C. 959.02 is void for vagueness, and the trial court dismissed the case on that basis. The appellate court reversed this decision.
State v. Howell, 137 Ohio App. 3d 804, 739 N.E.2d 1219 (11th Dist. 2000). Defendant, while drunk, tethered his dog to the back of his truck, forgot about it, then drove to his friend’s house, dragging the dog behind him the whole way. During the trial, the jury instructions did not include a section on “accident”. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings.